SI got my first roll of film in ages back from the lab at Costco, more on that at the end of the post.

I purchased this Kodak Ultramax ISO 800 at London Drugs, I think it was around $5 (developing to CD was $5.79) .

I stuck it into my Nikon F75 with my AP-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 lens. A lens designed for the DX sensor’s crop factor.

In reality there was very little vignette until smaller apertures, say f/11. It wasn’t even enough to worry about, no worse than an 18mm with two filters.

But that’s enough, on to the photos. This is my paren’ts lawn, the white stuff on the wires (for the Christmas lights) is snow mould

I thought it very appropriate to shoot this very 90’s vase with film.

Some cake making my wife was doing.When I say my hands are too big to use a D3000 or D5000 you can see I’m not just looking for an excuse to own my D90. I really did want the D5000.

The inside of my car.

I took it to Costco because some people have said their Costco does a good job, so I figured I’d give it a shot. Had these photos been important they’d have gone to Don’s or even London Drugs (I have hundreds of perfect files from London Drugs.)

You’ll notice in the picture of me with my with hands over my face a line across my head. I don’t know why that’s there it’s on a few photos but not others. If you know, please tell me. I have a print from around 2001 with the same thing.

The files Costco provided on the CD were 6.3MP, not too bad, especially considering the Ultramax 800 is so grainy that more wouldn’t have been better.

I have to say I’m not pleased overall. I don’t know if I should blame the film (I didn’t check if it was expired and I’ve never shot Ultramax 800 before. Or perhaps Costco’s processing or the digitization was incorrect. I’ve hand much better results from London Drugs in the past. I found the shadows were snapped to black and the exposure was even more non-linear than I expect film to usually be. The color was down right horrific and inconsistently so. Different shots with the same settings in the same room taken at the same time were dramatically different in odd ways. Shadows often had a magenta or blue cast and highlights a yellowish or green cast. I also noticed that saturated colors didn’t come out as saturated as they should have and muted colors came out more saturated than they should have.

Yah for Film! I think the lines across the film could have been caused by a few things. Since it's uniform across the shot, I think it's probably the film rubbing against a part of the camera when it's being wound. I have the same problem with the Holga, which I'm trying to work on. When winding or rewinding the film the tension may be variable across the roll, and thus only certain shots may have the mark. Just a guess anyway.

check the negatives and see if that line is on your negative. it looks more like a scan line to me. sometimes, depending on the machines they use in the lab (noritsu are kind of notoriously bad print machines) you can get those kinds of lines happening. they've been printing digitally for a while now, so the 2001 thing is reasonable to think unless it's actually on the negative. just my guess. i've had those lines show up on prints and then when i scan them myself i don't get em.
the digitization is sketchy at best on those machines. at ldn it's fuji, which is pretty trustworthy for scans.. the konica machine i use is probably the worst of the lot.. ;) . the problem with minilab digitization is that the scans are auto corrected/exposed and generally the guy behind the computer is just plugging away, making sure he gets all the work done as fast as possible.
you can blame the film, too, ultramax is awwful ... then again i find most c41 film higher than 200 to be kinda disgusting. you should try some MF next ! ;)

Thanks Jeff...I get the same line and I've tried several printing shops and it turns out it was the film dreaded Ultramax. Though I've heard many people complain about this line, it's never the same reason.